Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
How can you be skeptical of a claim I haven't made?
John, you wrote, “I suppose whatever objective mechanism we used to determine murder was wrong in the first place”
Who is this “we”? And, what is this objective mechanism used?
"We" is the inclusive plural of whoever the "someone" in your question is: "what mechanism would one use to determine the difference."
I don’t buy it. ‘We’ is plural, ‘one’ is not.
And, how ‘bout the second question, John?
Pretty much what I explained. We is the inclusive (I have to include myself otherwise its not objective) plural of whoever the someone is.
John, you wrote, “You seem to think killing a baby isn't murder so long as its in a womb,“
Horse manure.
Once again, you get slippery with definitions and consider your own to be, well, objective.
Is it not true you think abortion is not murder? That could be an objective position for all I know.
Some abortions, no, some, yes.
"You seem to think killing a baby isn't murder so long as its in a womb,"
Well the God of the bible seems to think torturing a bewborn baby to death over 7 days is fine. Just because it's parents were committing adultery. I'm curious is that moral in your opinion? If not then why do you worship such a deity?
"Being in a womb" is not a determinant factor, it's circumstantial. It has more to do with the fact that an embryo in early stages is a little more than a ball of cells, and even as it assumes more human-like forms it hasn't yet developed the neural structures to feel pain. It also has no conscience, no feelings, no memories, no established relationships. Nothing that we imagine as a human experience.
When you use the term "baby" instead of "embryo" you miss relevant distinctions.
The fact that humans feel pain and that is a disagreeable experience, and that a conscious being should avoid inflicting pain to others as a way to live well in society it is an important component of our considerations of moral behaviour and broadly justifies outlawing murder.
I wish I could give more than one agree when a post is this true and erudite. It's a complex moral dichotomy, and there are many relevant factors, those who deal in absolutes don't understand any of them.
When I use baby instead of embryo, I'm making an important correlation: Its identity. The OP plays with an interesting flaw in our moral reasoning, namely that we attach significance to duration. Murdering a child on his first day of school with an entire life ahead of him, doesn't quiet feel the same as sniping a elderly man mid-air, that just fell off a tall building and is about to hit the pavement.
Likewise we also attach significance to size. We feel nothing when stepping on an ant, but poaching an elephant is atrocious. If that's the case, then reducing baby to embryo would make it morally less valuable in people's mind, despite the continuity of its identity.
I have no problem with viewing pain as a factor behind morality. But notice how this argument, of outlawing murder to avoid inflicting pain on a conscious being, is the same reason why you're ok with abortions. Since in your argument, embryos have no conscious, feel no pain, they're therefore acceptable to kill.
Yes, there is identity. Obviously this embryo will (except for miscarriage etc.) become that full-fledged baby in the future. Yet as it is in its time, it is still deprived of those attributes we relate to "humanity". It's not the case that one is "reducing" a baby. The embryo is, by itself, a reduced, most incomplete stage of a potential future human person.
Killing is acceptable in many circumstances. We kill plants and animals for food. We kill forests to clear space for agriculture, to build cities. We kill mosquitos, snakes etc. to protect ourselves from harm. We kill humans too: Self defense, war, capital punishment… The question is: Under what circumstances should killing be acceptable?
One objective criterion is that, the less "human"/"sentient" a being is, the more acceptable its death is. If you were in a fire and you had to choose between saving a newborn baby or a recipient with 50 preserved embryos, you would hardly be blamed if you went for the baby.
I suppose my question would be what you mean by potential future person. That description qualifies more closely with what a sperm or ovum is. When we consider potential energy for example, a falling ball isn't said to have potential while its on its way towards the ground. Instead, it has potential while it is on a desk, waiting to be pushed over.
A sperm is similar to the object on a tabletop. It has the potential to become a future person, if its ever pushed into contact with the ovum. But once the egg has been fertilized, it is a human zygote. It doesn't become a potential human, it already is the falling human ball, on its way to maturity. It will go through the obvious stages, human embryo, human fetus, human child, adult human, elderly human.
For this reason I actually would save the newborn over the 50 preserved embryos (ignoring the recipient). The idea behind preserving an embryo, is to stop the ball from falling and placing it back on a tabletop. They have the potential to become a future human person, but not until pushed off the table once more.
The problem with the anti-abortion approach is that they want to match potential with what is real in the present tense. It's like saying that an acorn is the same as a tree. Both are part of a life cycle, but while we are happy throwing acorns in the trash, people give consideration and a very different value to the cut of a 100-year-old oak. The acorn is an object with all the potential of the tree, but it is not a tree, so we do not treat it as such. We do not damage a 100-year-old oak tree to save an acorn. Apply it to the human embryo.
People often put pine seeds in salads. These pine seeds, if left alone, can become many trees, a real pine forest that creates a habitat for many other creatures. However no one will match a lot of seed in my salad with a complete ecosystem although the potential is there. Also, A $ 100 bill in the stock market has the potential to become $ 1 million, however, put to choose no one will choose a $ 100 bill, even already invested optimally in the market, instead of 1 million of dollars in shares. An unrealized potential has less value than a potential already realized.
That an embryo does not feel or has a mind is a fact, since it does not have a developed nervous system. That an embryo does not have an independent existence is a fact. That an embryo has to take resources from the mother is a fact. What can be an opinion is whether it is part of the mother organism or not. In the first case, being the mother's body the ultimate private property, she can do with her body what she wants. In the second case, the embryo/mother relationship complies with the description of a parasitic relationship, and again being the body the ultimate private property, no government should dictate what a person does with his / her body's resources, so the host can deny the maintenance of the embryo. An embryo is not a human being. It is an embryo. A seed. Until the moment the central nervous system develops enough, there is no consciousness. In fact, children under 1-year-old do not recognize themselves in a mirror. While the fetus cannot carry an independent life by itself, it is part of the mother's body and she has the right to give or not the resources for its survival.
Right, but the acorn functions like the sperm in my example. It has potential because it hasn't germinated, it is sitting on a tabletop, "hibernating," waiting for water and soil to turn potential into germination. But I agree people acribe more value to bigger older things, which I think is wrong and a flaw in our moral reasoning. We shouldn't consider a child to be worth half as much as an adult, a baby half of that, and a fetus half of that still.
That said, a comatose person also doesn't feel, and has an absent mind. They do have a nervous system, but it is basically shut off (not completely). And much like an embryo they cannot exist independently, they take up resources and care, thousands of times costlier than an embryo.
A comatose person has a history and relationships and they might still have a consciousness, even awareness of their surroundings, although may be unable to communicate. Nothing to do with an embryo which does not have or have ever had a conscience or a history, or relationships. An embryo is not a person as an egg is not a chick. we gladly throw eggs at a politician we do not like. We will be frowned upon if we throw little chicks at anybody.
The eggs you eat and throw at politicians are not fertilized. They're in the same category as the acorn, the sperm, and the ovum. Although it is interesting that many Westerners are grossed out by Balut, which is an egg with an embryo inside that people eat.
By definition a comatose person doesn't have consciousness, and are not aware of their surroundings. Although I'm not sure why the new addition of the history and relationship variables is important.
"The eggs you eat and throw at politicians are not fertilised. "
Why would it matter if they were?
" Westerners are grossed out by Balut, which is an egg with an embryo inside that people eat."
Most seem fine eating Caviar, so I'd suggest the problem is the taste smell and texture which is alien to them, rather than the fact it's fertilised. I like my eggs fertilised, then hatched reared plucked and deep fired.
"By definition a comatose person doesn't have consciousness, and are not aware of their surroundings."
However unless they're in an irreversible coma they will recover their memories, and of course there are likely to be others to whom their loss would be devastating.
"Although I'm not sure why the new addition of the history and relationship variables is important."
I'm sure you are if you take a moment to consider the implications, that kind of reasoning and empathy btw is the very defintion of human morality.
However unless they're in an irreversible coma they will recover their memories, and of course there are likely to be others to whom their loss would be devastating.
How is an embryo any different?
However unless they're in an irreversible coma they will recover their memories, and of course there are likely to be others to whom their loss would be devastating.
"How is an embryo any different?"
I do wish you wouldn't try to play these silly games, you must know by now I'll not play along.
An embryo will eventually gain consciousness, start making memories, and they're likely to have grandparents, aunts, or whoever else that will be devastated by its loss.
Except they won't in this scenario will they, so your comparison is spurious. As somebody just pointed out, we'd throw an egg without batting an eyelid, but we'd not throw a chick, why is that do you suppose, come on Breezy I'm not buying you're really this dense. sorry.
@Aperez Re: "The problem with the anti-abortion approach..."
That has got to be one of the best ways I have ever heard that explained. Bravo!
An embryo is objectively not a baby, no matter how anyone FEELS about that objective fact. The distinction goes beyond the terminology, and you are implying that the terminology is simply to allow people to diminish it;s condition, but that's a lie, it is insentient, and feels no pain, these are medical facts. The fact you're dishonestly ignoring these, using inaccurate terminology then mendaciously claiming others are misrepresenting what it is suggests you have little interest in a candid debate of abortion.
" this argument, of outlawing murder to avoid inflicting pain on a conscious being, is the same reason why you're ok with abortions."
Another lie, offering facts that help us make informed decisions as to whether an aborted foetus experiences pain is not an argument in favour of abortion. Unlike the holier than thou religious zealots who insist others must live their lives as they think their deity wants, some people care about the rights of others, and yes that includes a developing foetus.
" Since in your argument, embryos have no conscious, feel no pain, they're therefore acceptable to kill.
Agree (0)"
No, that's just your inability to weigh complex moral dichotomies without resorting to absolutes, it's a problem most theists have when they are confronted with reasoned critical thinking, and people who aren't tied to archaic dogma like amoral automatons. The fact a foetus is insentient and feels no pain are not reason to terminate a pregnancy, they are factors to consider when considering if a termination is moral or not.
I don't see the distinction between asking this question of atheists, from asking it of theists?
What objective moral standard would a theist apply here, and what evidence have you to validate it's a moral absolute and therefore objectively moral at all?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate that the outcome would differ, and why would that be bad?
IRYQ-ASMO
That's the acronym I'm giving to the approach of "I reject your question, and substitute my own."
IRDC YQIDAI
That's the acronym I'm using for
I really don't care. Your question is dishonest and loaded.
In case you think your reticence is any less transparent or dishonest than your question.
I just enjoy exposing the dishonest double standard implied in your question, that theism is objectively moral and atheism is not.
The OP doesn't even mention theism and atheism.
Pages